kernel: Move kernel to 5.0.y#1504
kernel: Move kernel to 5.0.y#1504ganeshmaharaj wants to merge 1 commit intokata-containers:masterfrom
Conversation
|
/test |
|
You may need a config file in packaging repository too. Because config add kernel config live in different repository you will need to add https://github.com/kata-containers/tests#breaking-compatibility |
|
s/5.x/5.0.y/ ? |
Fixes: kata-containers#1503 Signed-off-by: Ganesh Maharaj Mahalingam <ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com>
|
@jcvenegas will test all kata systems with the new kernel and current config to make sure it is alright to delve into the new configs. i will push a follow-on patch with the same soon. |
|
/test |
grahamwhaley
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lgtm
What I'd really like to see is the formal decision to move from tracking longterm to tracking stable kernel releases documented somewhere ... I don't think we have that documented at the moment.
A defined ideal update cadence would also be nice, or the rules for when we do update (like CVEs are 'now', otherwise we track monthly, or on-demand etc.).
/cc @kata-containers/architecture-committee
|
We carry a pretty large arm64 kernel patch in packaging. Is it still needed once we move to 5.0.y? @Weichen81 |
|
I think the 52bit ipa feature has been included in the 5.x kernels. So I think it’s ok to remove the patch |
|
Thanks for confirmation @Weichen81 @ganeshmaharaj please add a PR to packaging repo to drop the arm64 kernel patch otherwise this PR will break CI as the arm64 patch will fail to apply. -- sadly we apparently are not catching it in CI here. |
|
Adding |
|
Currently waiting on kata-containers/tests#1442 and kata-containers/packaging#432 to land before proceeding with this change. |
|
depends on ? kata-containers/packaging#314 |
|
Hi~ @bergwolf @ganeshmaharaj As you may not notice, we also backport one patch for kernel v4.9.x for memory hotplug, which has been already included in v5.0.x, you could confirm from here. Btw, not all parts, still left one little part regarding probe interface under review. But, we can wait for this PR merged and do the refinement. ;) |
|
ack @Pennyzct - I tried to build a 5.0.7 kernel yesterday and the arm memory patches failed to apply, so I (locally) deleted them :-) @ganeshmaharaj - I think we can thus nuke the arm patch subdir in this PR (can/must/need to). |
|
@Pennyzct @grahamwhaley Yes, i do have a commit with new config changes and the patch updates here. ganeshmaharaj/kata-packaging@b86b07c I was going to re-work the PR right after we finish the kernel fragment PR to avoid too many clashes. If you wish to get that going now, i can get it ready. |
| @@ -161,8 +161,8 @@ assets: | |||
| description: "Linux kernel optimised for virtual machines" | |||
| url: "https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yep: https://cdn.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/
otherwise my (somewhere pending, maybe merged) 'version check scripts' will fail to find which versions are available, and probably complain loudly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup. I am holding off any changes to this patch and CI churn until we land kernel fragments change. Once that is done, i can update this patch and also PR the kernel patches update in packaging repo.
|
Still blocked on kata-containers/packaging#314 fwics. |
|
Right. the current plan is to hold off with 5.x move and work on getting virtio-fs & kernel fragments based off 4.x onto the tree. Following which we can work out a plan to move to 5.x |
|
@ganeshmaharaj any updates? Still blocked by kata-containers/packaging#314? |
|
Yeah, I think so, which is then blocked on the firecracker CI seeming less stable with the fragment kernel config.... we may have to bite the bullet on kernel version updates if we don't figure that out soon. |
|
@ganeshmaharaj I think this can be closed at this point? |
Fixes: #1503
Signed-off-by: Ganesh Maharaj Mahalingam ganesh.mahalingam@intel.com